This clip is part of the interview "Jordan Peterson / Cathy Newman - "The dark side of feminism"". Rebel Wisdom was so kind to provide part of the interview as material for this channel. You can watch the rest of the interview here: ruclips.net/video/1MBYr7ULLUo/видео.html#t=11m00s
There isn't a 'collective rage' in women. There is a collective rage in women who have been fed a diet of Postmodern, Third Wave Feminist, victim/oppressor propaganda but not in most women.
Fourth Wave Feminism will be anti feminism. And it will sound a lot like this woman. Feminists will happily join the anti-feminist bandwagon, just as long as they can maintain control of the 'social discourse'.
It was not Peterson's job to fix Cathy Newman's problem. That interview played out exactly how it needed to, and I see no other way that Peterson could have handled it. He said what he needed to, and made no misstep that I can see.
The "Gotcha" moment wasn't a misstep in my mind. At that moment he said what we were all thinking, and that humanized him a bit. He became a bit more relatable in that moment. People like that. Thinking about it now, I think that interview wouldn't have been as good, had he not had his gotcha moment.
Chris Hudson , I am inclined to agree. Sometimes people won't even recognize that something has happened unless you point it out. It also makes it harder for leftists to spin, given that she admitted that he had stumped her.
If Peterson had said: "I want time out from the debate to explore what is going on because I can feel you're coming with a lot of anger". That would have been labeled "mansplaining", would it not?
Louis, as pretty and appealing as your suggestion that Peterson 'stop' the interview and 'be in the moment', Newman wasn't a client. It was an interview in which she set herself up as an adversary, to which Peterson responded with incredible grace and restraint. If he'd gone 'professional' on her, can you just IMAGINE the backlash and firestorm about doing a mindf*ck without permission? I'd think there'd be an ethics case to be made too.
I’m so glad Jordan Peterson didn’t do any of the things she was recommending. Imagine him try to tell Cathy during the interview “He understood her rage and where it’s coming from”🤡. It like admitting to a crime he didn’t commit. She woulda had field day with the agendas
The interview went viral because Newman had not done any research on Peterson, had no clue about what he teaches asked all the wrong questions and tried to force her own biased understanding back on him. She had decided before the interview what Peterson was all about from probably listening to his detractors over the C16 Bill but there is much more to him than that. I have listened to hours of his lectures and being just an average person It was amazing to behold that an obviously intelligent interviewer could fail at her job so badly. . The female in the above interview is an air-head without a clue as well.
Arrogance and complacency. She had gotten so used to being able to flip over politicians she comes across with a few choice words that she assumed Jordan was just some reactionary right wing troll she could make look small. It backfired massively.
The Helen Lewis interview was different but equally awful. At one point JBP said (from memory) "once I know a few things about you I can predict your opinion on everything".
But as a psychoanalyst, Peterson was compelled to understand why she acted out in such a way. He said in later interviews, that he spent the first 20 mins or so in “therapist mode”- trying to figure out if he was talking to her persona, ego or shadow! He finally realized it was none of those but rather the animus, and pretty much checked out when he realized she was actually animus possessed and would therefore continue to argue for the sake of arguing. She embarrassed herself and woman as a whole (which is why identity politics is dangerous and I try to disassociate myself from the “tribe”. I think for myself, not the collective and therefore LIKE to think that only I can embarrass me, thus protecting myself from being embarrassed by her. Tho my (human?) nature wouldn’t allow me to to escape completely unscathed- I still feel tiny twinges of shame on behalf of my gender. I appreciate Jordan Peterson for offering insight on the male experience of our shared space-time. I don’t resent him in the slightest! But then again, I’m intelligent, educated in sociology and psychology and my innermost self. I feel “enlightened” lol Regardless, none of which is Cathy Newman
Sloth Bear Yeah. She talked a load of high flutten bollocks. Or, just bollocks. I hate it when acedemic try to make themselves look intelligent by talking out of their asses.
Same sentiment I had. It seems that she conflated Jung's collective unconscious with the Hindu concept of Corruption the concept of transcendent collective rage as found in Norse and Mithraist mythology.
Exactly, and thank you. So many in the comments don't seem to care that this female psychologist is on Peterson's side. Instead, they just get dismissive and angry at her for a variety of reasons which all seem to boil down to, "she's not being harsh and condemnatory enough of Newman, feminism, and the female." If there's a away out of this cultural quagmire, it isn't going to be through partisan hostility, no matter how justified that hostility is.
Psyche means Soul. I hate it when idiots cant understand plain English and try to make themselves look intelligent by putting people down instead of being honest with themselves. She doesnt use language to appear to have hidden knowledge. She is speaking as plain as possible but you act superstitious and paranoid. This is why they persecuted every wisdom teacher in history. You would rather dismisses her to hold on to your own ignorance and intellectual superiority when the subject is the soul not the mind. You guys are acting just like Kathy Newman. Fascinating!
That's inaccurate. Some of us just don't think she's that bright, and mostly just new age feel good shit spewed out of her mouth. I don't like someone because they agree with me, I would rather someone intelligent and on the other side of the argument than barely cohesive but aligned with my current views. Simply agreeing with Jordan Peterson isn't a free pass from criticism... Hell I criticize Jordan Peterson... not everything Jordan Peterson says is right, or even simply sometimes he's not as good at articulating it as he could be. Think for yourself, not just blindly play team sports - but with Jordan Peterson being his own team.
Yeah. She sounds a little loopy initially, BUT, I do think she is making some valid, if difficult to follow, points. I do think there is a phenomena within our society of women thinking they need to be men to be successful, they forget how to be women, and that internal conflict makes them lash out in every direction, often especially at other women.
No, it's a learned and fake way of speaking. Psychologists, priests, kindergartners, dog trainers ect speak this way. Not necessary malicious, but often is.
Middle 15min of the original video is absolutely crazy, nothing of value is said IIRC. It's like a mix between watching a surreal drowning scene in a movie with long hair and clothes wavily floating by in all directions at all distances with no up or down or focus being discernable and at the same time she is annoying the crap out of me with this intensity with no point or purpose. Acting like these women who feel entitled to literally get down on the ground in front of somone to force eye contact on someone who clearly isnt looking for a conversation or has dropped their eyes in the current conversation because they felt their brain melting under the laser-stare. This kind of feminine bullying, even AS Louise explains that it is wrong, she is at the same time displaying the signs of being a fem-bully herself. I can't stand her, but I try my very best to seperate that and dig out the arguments she is making as well as I can, otherwise I'd be doing the thing she and Newman is doing wrong.. But I think I know what you mean by agreeableness stat, she WILL probably convince most people she is agreeable...so maybe agreeable-privilege and maybe even self-identifying as agreeable, but I smell a socially highly skilled bully working from feminist and identity political assumptions...but to be fair to her, this profile used optimally can make for a hell of a therapist..
jackthebasenjicooks the term collective here, the shadow collective specifically, refers to the collective unconscious, a term coined by Carl Jung. It refers to archetypal structures of the unconscious mind which we share with one another. Her analyses is her own but the idea of the collective is valid.
I'm sorry but I don't buy this collective rage. I don't feel any rage towards men at all. I may feel rage in a specific instance towards a specific individual who is treating me poorly but the idea that women have any reason at all to be 'enraged' to me is part of the lie.
Don't worry. She's not a psychologist. Her PhD is in design from a college I never heard of and she appears to have had a career change to Psychosexuality and Shaminism (according to her website). She's a total quack. Another reason why women should stop letting women get away with speaking on their behalf. You get nutbags like this trying to claim to be experts.
She went a bit far with that. But I've tried to engage politely with women in feminist forums, and if I deviate one iota from their collective narrative, I am attacked by all of them. Mostly they tell me that I'm a rapist a a sexual predator for disagreeing with any minor thing they bring up.
This is the thing that shows how blatantly wrong they are. They can't back up their narrative with facts and reason so they hurl slurs and insults to get you to back down. There is no such thing as a polite conversation with these women and this is coming from a woman. I've gotten into it with many of them and sadly have had to shame them into reasoned thought. The sad thing is most of them are ignorant lemmings that have no idea they are being manipulated by Marxist leftists that want to divide society in order to keep control of it.
You know, I like to think I have a pretty good vocabulary but I actually had to look that one up. lol So no, not animus-possessed. Put it this way, if it was legal for a day to punch SJW's and feminists.....I would enthusiastically partake. :D
Sadly they've been manipulated into feeling that way for years. The constant victim narrative from the media has had its effect. The same has happened with racial issues or other minorities willing to be visible through victimization.If there's a victim then there's an oppressor, then follows anger and rage and finally spiteful revenge.
Thank you Dr. Louise Mazanti, for your summary of that interview. I have to say when I watched the full interview, I felt she was on an attack of Dr. Peterson's character and his work, it was horrifying that she was allowed to behave in such a manner. I wish it had been addressed at the time. Cathy Newman was abusive, and aggressive to the max! She should be seriously reprimanded.
Feminism had good roots tbh. But unfortunately they've been corrupted. I love woman, I love humans. Feminism was originally about equality which I think everyone can agree with.
@@boobtimmy9470 Feminism has its roots in witchcraft. There’s no such thing as a benevolent grievance-based belief system. Feminism is and always was anti-male fascism. Claiming ‘love for all people’ is cute, but it’s naive. It’s your defense against the harsh reality that you are hated, and that you will at some point have to accept that you live in a world of deceitful monsters. Feminists hate you, and they hate you openly and with vitriol. They hate you so much that they’ll tell you they love you to bring you in as close as they can for the kill. Good luck out there.
This is silly. Peterson was not treating Newman as a patient, he was taking part in an interview with an established reporter on a national tv channel. To have stopped the interview and asked for a time out to analyse Newman’s issues would have led to him being criticised, correctly, as not respecting her professional role. Her questioning was an attempt to deliberately misrepresent his views, as seen by her constantly restating his replies as “So, you’re saying...” followed by an increasingly bizarre assertion. Newman started the interview with an agenda quite different from her supposed journalistic role on behalf of the viewers: of eliciting from Peterson a elaboration of his views and how he came to them, as represented by his new book which he was in the uk to promote. It’s doubtful that Newman had even read the book. Professional journalism this was not. The psychologist in this clip, referring to Peterson and Newman as everyman/everywoman is denying the agency of both. This whole clip is rather odd response to the c4 interview. Could it be some overthought attempt at damage limitation by c4 with help of a sympathetic former c4 producer?
In fairness he does say he trested her like she was a patient. He made that his approach. Thats not bad. Its what helped him achieve his desired outcome
A women taking an objective, logical, dispassionate and objective view about feminism and the patriarchal myth..How refreshing. How rare. I briefly listened to Radio 4 today and as per usual, it was a relentless diatribe of feminist propaganda...I took it for 5 minutes and switched...i will check back tomorrow, and I'm 99% sure that i will hear the same again...and again.
I felt Cathy Newman hadn’t researched Jordan & had been told about him in a certain way so the researchers & producers own some blame for the car crash interview
This woman is far too childlike. She very clearly does not understand the insanity of the hard left. I agree fully with some of you, if Peterson had done that "time out" (HA HA HA HA HA!) thing....Cathy Newman and her fellow cultists would have attacked him for it.
Neuro Mancer She IS the hard left. She agrees with everything that Kathy faked outrage about. Her only criticism of Kathy is that she should have shoved feminazi bullshit in a way that didn't make her and her agenda look foolish.
so newman is a victim of having to compete to get to the top of her field? and that’s becoming more masculine and feeding into the “collective rage” of femininity? this sounds like a load of pish.
Wow. That was the most beautiful interview I’ve heard in a while. I’ve actively been waiting for some noble women to start saying this, so I can share it. Because I’ve realized it can’t be males like me who express it. it wouldn’t matter if no one would listen.I sincerely hope this begins some turning point of genuine healing for gender strife, after all the decades of cathartic outpouring of pent up rage.
This woman is so full of it. "feeling the energy" "live in their power", etc. She's a buzzword machine. Had he tried to pause her they would have crucified him as trying to control the conversation. That wouldn't have been a solution - she wasn't there for therapy and it would have been condescending. And the whole point is that everyone can find anger in themselves. Men and women. The difference is society celebrates that anger in women and tells men they have no right to be angry. The reaction from this is going to be men realizing that society telling them not to be angry doesn't have the moral high ground to make that claim when its being controlled by regressive feminist supporters. The result will be a lot of uncontrolled anger, which is not a good thing. You can be angry without a good reason. Just because you're angry doesn't mean you're right, and doesn't mean other people have to acknowledge you. That's a feminist premise that they use to claim legitimacy on the basis of hurt feelings. Your mother needs to acknowledge your anger. Your therapist needs to acknowledge your anger. Society needs to tell you to stfu and grow up. Otherwise we get these overgrown children like Cathy Newman wholly possessed by their angry ideology and incapable of thinking or even making intelligent arguments. To quote jordan peterson "Grow up, you weasel!"
Interesting. So why is there such female rage today? This was not present when I was young. I get the feeling that women are disconnected with themselves and project this outwards.
Correct. I think some women are feeling a deep internal struggle. They want to deny it but it is there. Women are trying to be men and find fulfillment in things that intrinsically won’t make them happy. And because women are more about intuiting rather than reasoning, they have this frustration that builds up in them that they can’t make sense of. I think a good example of this is when we see when these female sjws start screaming and bawling when they are provoking in the slightest way by truth. And I think their only solution to their internal strife is to blame men, period.
It's not female rage, it's _feminist_ rage at the perceived slights and oppression instantiated by the patriarchy. They're just riled up ideologues and it doesn't even have to make sense, because women don't have to.
Bingo, and the Left (gay alphabet,SJW, political correctness, BLM, Antifa, and the MSM) are all stacking it layer upon layer, making it worse daily. But I still want to hear Louise' explanation as a female psych.
Fredderick Anselmo : on second thought I overlooked something. Dr. Jordan Peterson highlighted how she seemed a different person just before the interview... I overlooked that in my initial analysis. If this is the case this is not narcissistic personality disorder, or at least not it on its own. She is likely a conduct disorder salad with overlapping narcissistic traits. At this time she is too complicated for me.
She is responsible, and the psychologist didn't say she wasn't. What's she's saying is her anger comes from the collective, her background experiences.
This psychologists assessment is “right on”. I couldn’t believe Cathy Newman’s interview. I don’t know Cathy Newman and how she’s considered in the UK. If she’s considered a top notch journalist...oh boy.
Yes, Newman was manipulating everything she was saying. Why she did this, is pure speculation. I agree with this woman that the collective rage among angry women is 'acting out'. But they are behaving like children and that behavior demeans women imo. Whatever the reason for the acting out, IF it is anger, it does need to be managed in a mature way. Anger is like kindling...the more you pile it on, the bigger the fire it produces, which can lead to a destructive inferno. I want no part of these women. I find their behavior reprehensible. I can stand up to any man w/o behaving like an insane raging shrew and without playing the victim.
"My whole body contracted and I felt so sad." Me too. After that it's vague and I really don't know what she's talking about. Collective rage? Count me out.
Collective rage of the new age feminist maybe? I can tap in to the collective rage of males who have this weight of "toxic masculinity" put on them by these new version of feminist activists... doesnt mean I see women as any less... women like newman dont reflect the positive ideologies of the feminine. She creates a further gap between men and woman by projecting the extremities of the negative of the masculine onto every male. I'd say she's got more of that toxic masculinity than what someone like jordan Peterson does.... I hope we can all feel equal one day
She's not insisting that women are basically a hive mind just waiting to propagate hate. Just acknowledging the anger one might have for things like being judged for being successful by having masculine traits. She isn't saying you act on this rage the way Newman did, if anything she's insisting people have intelligent conversations about it. Idk why you would want to count yourself out
Don't you know... She is just talking about the feminism... You are right.. It is vague and an ahe is right too... Feminism is inexplicable rage and is obviously collective...
She didn't have rage, it's just how corrupt journalists work. I don't think Cathy Newman believed anything she said, it's all about projecting a narrative, in order to to be seen as a moral source of truth. She had those questions either written down, or spoken into her ear and she expected it to go the way it's worked for her in the past. However, she was outclassed by someone who was aware of the tactics and steered the conversation in the way he wanted. She wasn't prepared and so she ended up coming across as confused that he was going off script, as if she wasn't listening to his answers and so she had to twist his words in a way that was so obvious to everyone watching, even those in denial about it, hence the damage control. The one thing that's clear, is Cathy Newman is a bitter person.
The moral ideology of social justice. It's a an ideology manufactured to manipulate people in to doing what certain people want, people who don't believe what they preach, but demand you do. It's nothing more than a tool used to gain societal control, once they have control, the ideology would get discarded and their true intentions become apparent. Thankfully, most people don't hold extremist views and as such the audience being captured is small and is continuing to shrink as people can no longer ignore the reality at what this ideology entails.
Yes, a ridiculous monologue about Cathy holding the 'rage of all women' What numbskulled garbage is this - how does the guy interviewingg keep a straight face? If you're concerned about university departments losing their way you should be equally concerned about the drivel this woman is spouting
Sorry but what? She keeps saying rage is "in the female collective". I can feel rage too, no problem. I'm a male. It's a Human trait, not a specifically female one. She seems to be talking a load of wooish nonsense.
I'm a woman and I'm not in a state of rage over being a woman. I felt that way when I was 13. I don't feel that way at the age of 30 because I've experienced the world around me and realized that being a woman is pretty good.
Feminism exploits biological instincts in a very parasitic and covert way. Masculinity is characterized as tyranny, which isn't very manly or sustainable in reality. This is paralleled by the very common attraction women have toward "bad boys". Whether an outspoken femi-nazi or a hollywood bimbo, the "victim" of feminism is compelled to various forms of grotesque role-reversal.
Much of this ‘rage’ is likely caused by competing with each other on social media. In many cases, I’d bet that using social media equates to self harm.
Also, no. That potential is not in every woman. Because not every woman feels the "collective rage" she speaks about ... we haven't bought into that narrative pushed by feminism.
many feminists do have collective rage. I seen it and it s fairly apparent. Look at all the social justice warriors as well they feel they are oppressed when they are not and decide to take their rage on others for no justifiable reasons at all. That is so wrong on their part, they should be treated as patients that they are because they are mentally ill.
Many feminists, yes. Every woman, no. She wasn't specifying only "feminists" in her remark, but all women, which is what my comment is referencing. She's incorrect about that.
CynDaVaz - well that's like saying healthy people aren't insane, so yes quite right. And it's important that the healthy and sane participate in the dialog and not be silent, whether it's feminists or leftists or Muslims or Trans-identified people.
CynDavas, thank you for mentioning this coment, and to tell you the truth mist women do not agree at all with those radical views. And no there is no potential there to become this way, we all do not see the world in that crazy light. That is a very good point.
I have to say, I am a woman and absolutely don't have anything "boiling right underneath the surface" and I can't "tap into any collective rage" that is just waiting to come out but was handled poorly by Cathy Newman. At least not when it comes to the subject of gender, equality, or oppression of my feminine rights. Her answers are vague and in my opinion do not contribute to an intellectual conversation as she calls it. Thanks for doing the interview though!
You might not... but a lot of females do. Personal experience of course plays the biggest role, but generally, I assume it is because essentially we are all out of touch with ourselves in a world gone haywire... and in this specific regard, the war of the genders, annoying feminists, Harvey Weinstein and all the rest, with everything that is happening around us on top of that, people no longer know where to place themselves... women dont know how to be women, men dont know how to be men. -> Insecurity, no strong sense of belonging or identity, confusion -> anger.
Me too. I am a woman and I don't have any boiling anger underneath against "men". Come on. Who, exactly, are "men"? Abraham Lincoln was a man. Albert Schweitzer was a man. Adolf Hitler was a man. Florence Nightingale was a woman. Mata Hari was a woman. Every human being is an individual, whether woman or man, and I personally am really sick of feminism.
Sadly I see a lot of women that do have a lot of rage, and yet men do not seem to be the cause of it. But they are always the target. I don't know why so many women have this issue. Somehow our society has trained women from birth that any problem they have in life must be caused by a man, there is no other explanation. This is probably why, even when women cause their own problems (such as when the woman cheats), she typically blames the man for even what she has done. It's out of control.
I never heard of Louise Mazanti until now, but I'm very impressed. I can tell that she is a very empathetic person who is deeply concerned about the relationships between men and women. She is fighting the good fight. I clung to her every word.
Can we please stop this victim mentality, this made me (a woman) cringe so hard, I don't even want to be associated with the 'collective' she's talking about. As a matter of fact, I don't even want to be associated with women who think like this woman.
Well said. Feminism is about empowering women - not finding absurd excuses for their appalling behaviour. Honestly that sounded like the old excuse for men sexually harassing women because they were dressed provocatively - just crap.
Raafke I've been trying to get through Carl Jung book Aion which talks about the Animus. The male counterpart is called the Anima. When you aren't conscious of it, you can fall prey to it's influences, basically possessed by it. I think that's what she's referring to when she says "collective." As in so many people have experienced it for so long that it's become a psychological archetype. That's the reason for the universal term. Just my basic understanding of the phenomena so far.
I don’t know what female or male rage has to do with any of this. It was just plain stupid. The former producer being interviewed here, who happens to be a therapist herself, didn’t excuse it at all, she acknowledged it completely. She said it was abusive and manipulative of her, not him. She said she was embarrassed on behalf of women. What on earth were you just watching? He asked follow up questions, did you not hear this part? She’s on your side, dude.
@@hasgoodles7807Jordan Peterson discusses female rage. While men are more likely to get physical women are more likely to use their words for example in gossip, character assassination and insults
Interesting choice of 'psychologist'. A former professor of art and design turned sex therapist. This might account for the near incoherent psychobabble. She might have said something worth listening to, but I barely understood it (and I'm a psychologist).
She was caught in a bit of false victory when she heard Peterson say you making me rather uncomfortable, then she responds I'm glad that I got you to that point. *Paraphrasing*
I can't help but "feel" this phychologist is still blaming men for every ill women suffer. When women do well it is because they are powerful women. When they behave badly it is mens fault. Wouldn't it be healther to "clean your room" as JBP would say.
Indeed, she showed how she feels when she said womanhood. What the hell does that mean? She has separated men and women as if there is a war between them. She would stab her husband in the back in favor of a female stranger. Such a weird frame of mind. When a man says manhood he's talking about his cock.
Personal responsibility is a useful philosophy. But reality is more complicated than that. It's difficult to understand much about anythign collective- be it family, society, ethnicity- in purely individualist terms. I encourage personal responsibility, but one has to be able to see the shortcomings of any system of thought one adopts... THis is exactly the failing of collectivists, they lose sight of the individual. Individualists make the same mistake, they lose sight of the collectives.
Agreed, this woman is an idiot - she says he should have stepped back and analyzed how she was behaving. In fact he took control in the best possible way - with respect. He did it by defending his position and pointed out her hostility by mentioning her 'disagreeableness' which was both a compliment and a criticism. His compliment destabilized her but also forced her to relate personally to the argument
She has a PhD which you probably don't have. You don't understand this was an interview not a debate. She was suppose to interview things in the book not to start a debate and putting words in his mouth to slender his book and reputation. She as a reporter is suppose to report the facts and ask questions of what is in the book and what he means, she did little in that regard and was just trying to create a false narrative of what the book was about instead of finding out the truth. This is what I feel Peterson should have done and point out of her obvious bias towards these subjects.
Jun Kim, not really. He would come across as arrogant and aggressive if he did that. Also, she is not there to report facts, I'm not sure if you know how interviews work but the interviewer asks questions, challenge and dig into the answers to try and elicit more detail. People are mistaken in thinking its a competition. Her questions were fairly shallow and combative but they were enough to bring out some talking points - which is the point. The interview style is completely normal even if the questions weren't very sharp. The definition of a boring interview is when the interviewer affirms and plays to the points the interviewee is making.
hopp I think it would've been nice for him to try to cut to the core of Newman, and maybe REALLY change her mind. But what he ended up doing was perfectly fine as well. She acted like a child
WHo the hell is Louise Mazanti? Seriously B grade psychology vocabulary and explanations, wrapped in feel good New Age nothingness. Your interview with her should have ended after 60 seconds because she only rehashed with a paucity of professional terminology the first 60 seconds.
getting the opinion of someone as superficial and unedified as Mazanti regarding anything to do with Jordan Peterson is poor form. If women want to be treated as equals, she can start by doing some serious study and work, and less time doing coffee and hair. And seriously David Fuller, sporting an on trend beard doesn't make you a better journalist. In my books, it makes you someone without a strong enough internal locus of control to resist meaningless body meme-ing.
I stated what my problem was above. To unpack and lay it out neatly on the table for you, her repetitive use of a limited range of hacked populist and emotionally overladen phrases, strongly indicated a paucity of academic and clinical erudition in the field. So tell me the novel insight she imparted to you. The reason JP is so respected is because of his superior comprehension and communication of a broad range of psychology studies. This woman is pretty much the antithesis.
helicart To put it simply she is highlighting Newman's projection of the Jungian shadow onto Peterson. Man what do you want from her? Damn hard to please these days.
@John McCue 1. It wasn't 'her' unconscious shadow, because she is not repressed, but rather, a very high achiever, and was pleasant enough to JP before the interview. 2. She can turn on and off these attacks at will, she does not have a consistent history of uncontrolled outbursts... therefore it is also unlikely to be the collective unconscious aspect of the shadow. 3. It was a totally conscious methodically planned strategy to unnerve and disorient JP in order to discredit his professional and intellectual status. But JP kept his cool and provided rational responses, so it became a battle of stamina, and Newman burnt out first. Are you telling me Newman is so uneducated that she cannot comprehend the arguments and studies that show there is no gender pay gap? Of course she knows....but it doesn't fit the narrative she is paid to peddle. The reason she had to eventually pause to think of a response is because she knew her ruse is non sensical. She was playing a role that is not part of her or her shadow. She did it because it is part of how she expresses power in the world. She sided with 3rd wave feminism and neo Marxism not because she believes in these things, but because it gave her a leg up to power and status. It is power, prestige, and status that is important above all else to Newman. No one else of her intelligence would play that role because they know it is transparent low brow rubbish. A Ph.D in psychotherapy should have been able to elaborate why Newman did a collective shadow projection, rather than played a role as a professional antagoniser on behalf of progressive elites. If Newman was conscious of the ruse, it was not a projection. As I originally alluded, Mazanti is not a Ph.D psychotherapist's asshole.
Am I right in thinking personal responsibility is excused and the collective consciousness of all women is blamed for Newman's short comings un the interview not her agressive style of interview with huge helping of confirmation bias.
bloodmuffin123 yes, this shrink is mitigating newman’s personal responsibility because of some kind of collective “rage” that has yet to be justified. apparently.
Mistah Susan, I surmise the collective rage she speaks of is the victim narative propogated by modern third wave feminism that women are oppressed in the west and suffer under the yoke of patriarchal oppression, this therefore can excuse any manner of bad behaviours as the end justify the means comrade.
This woman is very much tapped into the situation we are all finding ourselves in. It's this... but it goes so much deeper. Please keep it up, and keep waking up faster!
We aren't meant to mutilate our baby boys either, or deprive them of their fathers, or raise them as eunuchs, or make them feel guilty for having a penis, or denying men parenthood, or extorting them with help from the government. There are a lot of things women shouldn't be doing to men.
That rage should be aimed at enemies of the family's fortune, be it poor weather or economy etc. The supportive nature that 'the collective' is aiming outward towards other women would be better aimed at the individual men they depend on for continued survival. Men are meant to be strong, but part of that is not dealing with a spiteful opposing gender. Feminism has made men the enemy and in the process become what they feared. Do men need to fix women, is that what this therapist asked?
conradblackii I'm well aware of that. I'm no feminist. I've sent away/ stopped many of natures elements in my time. I've brought good fortune to my family etc & on and on. I exactly live that way. Can we expect ordinary folk /men & women to know this is how it works? When their power has been hidden from them since birth, perverted, diverted, inverted, however you want to put it into words. As we well know now the social programs and constructs run deep. No-one can escape the energy of truth thats coming forth now, but they sure can fight it, I don't want to call out all women for the fighting but those who go along with the feminism mantra are dumb programmed bitches. I can't stand them. They've made my life as a woman who wanted to create home, family, be a mother, have no career etc, I've been looked down upon by these types before.... I use my rage against them. They cannot stand being around my energy. I live a well balanced life, unlike them, I don't feel the need to fight everyone who doesn't agree with me either, they very much do attack other women that challenge them. They can stay well away from me and mine. That suits me. I laugh at these mad bitches. They will inevitably become extinct with their intentions Good comment. Thanks
+going home, yes you speak to the heart of the situation. That most people need successful models to follow as they grow up, relatively few can go against the grain for so long and end up in good spirits. Young women are almost all taught that their life is a white collar yuppy man's life, and it is theirs to claim. The fact that few men lead this idealized or Hollywoodized version of reality doesn't sway the feminists. As Newman said in the interview, "who wouldn't want to be a CEO, it's interesting and well paid". Peterson tries to clue her in that most people wouldn't want that life, or have the ability to fight for it. The Newman interview showed that there does exist a solid resistance to the status quo, and that the support and intellectual underpinnings for feminism (or chauvinism for that matter) are very thinly supported. Males and females are each one half of the battery of life, the yin / yang balance and cycle. Marxism hates this inequality and prefers we all become genderless robots instead.
The therapist's accent quickly struck me as sounding Danish (I'm Danish), and she is, so it was a very pleasant surprise for me to hear a Danish woman say all these good things, since I find that most Danish women are self-righteous Cathy Newman clones, although there are some bright spots here and there. My British female friend, who has been living in Denmark for around three years, actually also called Danish women "very hard".
I disagree completely. She's not saying that women are justified in unleashing their rage. She's saying that we need to have proper conversations about these things, which is what Cathy Newman didn't manage because she was so brainwashed by feminism gone wrong, so she projected all her rage towards men onto Jordan Peterson.
To me, the therapist sounded very honest, and she completely took Jordan Peterson's side. As she started out by saying, she felt embarrassed for all women. I honestly don't see how all of you get to the conclusion that she was legitimizing Cathy Newman's behaviour. I heard her say the exact opposite - that it was embarrassing and an example of feminism gone wrong.
I’m with you. As far as I could see, she defended Dr. Peterson and called for women like Newman to actually listen to what is being said rather than twist every man’s words to fit a feminist expectation. She accurately described Newman’s approach as the darker side of the feminine nature that should be understood but kept in check, paralleling Peterson’s call to understand the monster inside you. I’m completely surprised at the amount of negative conments from men who appear to have not listened carefully to this woman. I think it’s ironic that they seem to be “pulling a Newman” themselves. It’s true, intelligent, feminine women do not always speak in the same precisely logical way as Dr. Peterson. She explains this near the end. Feminine nature and values are different from masculine nature and values and a woman shouldn’t be pilloried because she doesn’t act like a man. Anyway, that’s how I saw it.
She was spewing horse manure in platitudes. Till, near the end, her polite, accomadating speech was pushed aside by expressions of her own rage momentarily. She was faking agreeability the entire time. I wouldn't trust this lady as far as I could throw her.
Her name doesn't sound Danish does it? She's done some amusingly whacky sex advice including videos (they're on YT) where she and her partner talk about their sex life.. So probably a lunatic :)
this "collective RAGE" that supposedly is in "all" women.... NO DEAR LADY.... it is ONLY in Feminists.... Those of us who have never stepped OFF of our pedestal and lowered ourselves to become "EQUAL" have no such thing as "RAGE" .. As women, we always have been and are STILL the "Ruling Power behind the Throne" ... because we are the Strength behind our men.... and in return we are Adored, Loved and Respected by the men we Honor and Respect. A Real Woman will not have pent up Anger or Rage; because her life will be full and without regret.
The problem with stopping to ask what is making her angry, is that's the very moment the abuse of emotional blackmail succeeds at getting it's claws into it's victim. Peterson did exactly what he should have done; stood his ground, stayed assertive, kept his responses rational, made his case, all while remaining respectful. This is why the woman in this video see's Cathy as the abusers instead of the victim.
Olav Bergman Its not so much "about it" as much as its a relief to see/hear the obvious.... without the usual shaming & vitriol I get for saying such a thing in my public and private life. Women want to be protected and given a pass on their rage and abuse because their damn vagina and victim cult status. Sometimes , that's what a slap was for in the past.
The interviewee is over analysing this. As far as I can tell, Chanel 4 has always conducted intentionally provocative interviews, whether the journalist agrees with the subject or not, it seems the point of these Chanel 4 interviews is to be sensationalist and provocative. It's not clear necessarily that Cathy Newman even believes the words coming out of her own mouth.
Newman seems quite a clever woman; I also don't think she defends the arguments she used in the interview as her own. She just basically took a role of a 'feminist persona', based on what feminist arguments are currently popular on the internet and social media. Her ebthusiastic debating made people cinvinced that she also thinks the same way as a side she ostensibly represented.
Bill Addison Newman's facial expressions and body language show that she believes her own lies. You can see her trying to get on the offensive while Peterson clearly remains on a calm controlling plain. You can see her rage as he just nonchalantly bats her attacks away. It was like watching a 3 year old fighting an mma pro.
I agree, her body language gave her away. If she had been just pretending to think that way, she would've been calm and collected but her hostility was not a pretence.
I think that is very likely. But it would show a stunning level of sociopathy if it were true. Is she willing to dehumanize broad swathes of humanity for her own ego and employment? That indicates a far more dysfunctional personality than simply believing feminist ideology.
You got one thing right. Newman was projecting her animus in this instance. Channeling her rage at a man who obviously didn't deserve it, but what she didn't expect is that Peterson is NOT a pushover. Not only that but he is far more intelligent than her. Why would he back down in this case, give her a handout when he is superior? He actually did her a favor in this instance. He DID beat her intellectually, but he humbled her as well.She WILlL either have to reconsider her ways of conducting interviews, and be less hostile, or she will continue being hostile and find a weaker male that she can dominate in such an agressive interview manner. My money is on the latter, but now, many men will learn the Petterson technique and her success rate will rop if she persists in conducting interviews like this.
For 50 years, Western men have acted like cucked ostriches...to cowardly to attack feminism. Females responded by throwing temper tantrums...like spoiled children who are never disciplined.
Women need men to be both physically & mentally present when times are hard and just listen, nod in the affirmative & give us a hug instead of tell women their concerns are wrong.
Dr Mazanti is so so right. Peterson addressed this to a degree discussing the competitive nature of her career and her success at it. Men are often different but not necessarily better. Peterson did a great job.
So based on what she's saying, the 'collective rage' present in almost all women, feminist or not, is just a given phenomenon that can be tapped into spontaneously due to an accumulation of injustices in the past? COME ON... women in third world countries have been truly truly suffering with lack of rights and rape and I empathize with them.. but women in modern developed countries have been beyond pampered and given equal opportunities in every way. I as a millennial male, have been brought up to treat every person without judgement, prejudice or any preconceived notion... I do not subscribe to the whole feminist movement because I myself do not see an imbalance in equality in my daily life experiences between men and women inside and outside the workforce...
In fact, I would say that there has been so much credit and care given to women in this day and age, that being a man is synonymous to being an oppressor on the eyes of most feminists.
atticus319 the term collective here, the shadow/rage collective specifically, refers to the collective unconscious, a term coined by Carl Jung. It refers to archetypal structures of the unconscious mind which we share with one another. Nothing to do with new age BS even if her own interpretation of it sounds a bit “new agey”
Alex, pay attention and think before trying to enlighten. Listen to what she says, about how she feels on behalf of womanhood, and men causing women's feelings, and you will see that this is not the definition of collective rage she's referring to. She speaks as if people can share an emotion, and I disagree with this. I wasted my time listening to the first 4.5 minutes again, and at no point did she use the term collective unconscious. You're response was so out of integrity, it made me vomit. I'm guessing you're a humanities educated person.
It might "sound like" something, but if you pay attention, MGTOW and Red Pillers are actually bringing data and well thought perspectives, whereas feminists and SJWs make up stuff based on how they feel. The fem/SJW can largely be explained through the cliche "the grass is always greener.."
I'm confused... Am I a "modern beta male progressive" because I think Cathy Newman is a sociopathic SJW media tool? Or, is it because I think this hippie dippy nonsense explanation of her pointed attack of Jordan Peterson "being the manifestation of the worldwide collective of female anger" is just as ridiculous?
When she said "I can tap into that rage" I could see the crazy in her eyes. The past men she's lost her mind at. She's the type of woman you turn and run from and never look back.
Newman was not "pushed into" being aggressive by a masculine world. Aggression is not just the domain of men David Fuller. All behaviours cross over genders!
After I hit 50, I decided to give up on dating. To me, it had always been a game. A game that was stacked against the deck of any man that wasn't a superior specimen in the eyes of a woman. Whether it be that he was really strong, really handsome or really well off financially. Even when I would grow wiser and learn to detect the minefield before stepping on the mines, the avoidance of the mines became a minefield of it's own. For example when being asked, "do you think I wear too much makeup." From experience you learn that saying yes means you are attacking the way they put on makeup and saying no means you are attacking the way they look with less makeup. You think you can avoid the no-win question by going around it with something like "I don't really notice it" gets turned into you not caring about something important to them. Try to make a joke like "the make up is fine .. as long as I'm not paying for it" and it becomes that you are never serious. As a person that likes most kids but never had kids of his own, I wash away any regrets by thinking about how many times I don't have to have a conversation with the mother about the job she is doing as a mom or that I am doing as a dad. To steal a little bit from a Bill Burr joke and make it my own, masturbation is the champaign of remaining sane.
The world has reached a point where it's giving birth to a new breed of Humans that are wolves disguised as sheep (socially speaking). They appear to have good intentions, but their true nature is that of violence and anger and it often shows in situations like these. The things this Ms Mazanti is saying in this interview are at this point a long forgotten dream; we would all love to be able to discuss constructively, but there are those who are being raised in a way that it's impossible for their minds to be open for a constructive conversation. All opinions are being tagged with labels rather than deconstructed as genuine efforts to better mankind. Your opinion will be labelled and thus your intentions will be dismissed even if they are as pure are raw gold.
Women whose feminine energy is not correctly grounded are bitches. This is very consistent. However so caused. If women are grounded in their feminine energy, they are amazing creatures.
I think people are confusing her weird tonal expression and intonation that comes across a bit inauthentically with what she is actually saying. The notion of a collective unconscious shadow projection expressed by people within the neo feminist movement is spot on. Its unconscious, enmeshed, unprocessed resentment, victimhood, and immaturity. I don't many people criticising the unconscious collective concept actually understand what it means...The general metaphor of the ultimately destructive and devouring shadow feminine is pretty standard archetypally, also.
Dr Louise Mazanti is mostly spot-on in this interview. Sure, you can pick out a phrase or sentence that was not well-thought out or has little evidence to back it up, but she has the right perspective. I think most women are wonderful, and I think that women are done a disservice when they are measured by a male standard (how aggressive they are, how disagreeable, etc.). Women bring unique talents, in particular the ability to bring together information from diverse domains or groups to bear on a problem. Men often select one criteria (typically the most easily-measured one) and create a strategy to maximize along that criteria. This gives them a "win", but does so at the expense of all the other criteria. Women are better at finding solutions that satisfy 80% or so of each group's needs. We need more of that in business and relationships.
What she says at the end "We have to start with ourselves" - adult women (and men) need to understand personal Agency and Responsibility. Much trouble starts when either attempt to "outsource" their personal Agency. What this means to me is: an adult and sane person with a healthy upbringing has the tools and responsibility to deal with 90% of what life throws at them, and to learn from their mistakes. For everything else, that is what their support structure or group is there for.
"Feminism" is not a label that should be used in any way with regard to the Newman interview. It's much deeper than that. To use "feminism" is to not look at the source, which is the thought system of the ego. Don't get distracted by lables.
This clip is part of the interview "Jordan Peterson / Cathy Newman - "The dark side of feminism"". Rebel Wisdom was so kind to provide part of the interview as material for this channel. You can watch the rest of the interview here: ruclips.net/video/1MBYr7ULLUo/видео.html#t=11m00s
What will be next? "The dark side of crime" or maybe "The dark side of cancer"...?
There isn't a 'collective rage' in women. There is a collective rage in women who have been fed a diet of Postmodern, Third Wave Feminist, victim/oppressor propaganda but not in most women.
PhilosophyInsights
Well-connected you! Nice scoop.
Fourth Wave Feminism will be anti feminism. And it will sound a lot like this woman.
Feminists will happily join the anti-feminist bandwagon, just as long as they can maintain control of the 'social discourse'.
this is the weakest content I have ever seen on your channel. a B grade journalist interviewing a C grade psychologist. really disappointing.
It was not Peterson's job to fix Cathy Newman's problem. That interview played out exactly how it needed to, and I see no other way that Peterson could have handled it. He said what he needed to, and made no misstep that I can see.
Dark Dragon Dragoon , yup and that's exactly why he won.
The "Gotcha" moment wasn't a misstep in my mind. At that moment he said what we were all thinking, and that humanized him a bit. He became a bit more relatable in that moment. People like that. Thinking about it now, I think that interview wouldn't have been as good, had he not had his gotcha moment.
Chris Hudson , I am inclined to agree. Sometimes people won't even recognize that something has happened unless you point it out. It also makes it harder for leftists to spin, given that she admitted that he had stumped her.
@@hotjanuary It played Out really Well.
The "gotcha" was a fresh air on that conversation. It was so tense, I felt that the "gotcha" did the things more lightly
Jordan Peterson: “I’m an analyst and therapist.”
Cathy Newman: “so what you’re saying is you’re an Analrapist?”
Dont steal others comments 🤣🤣.
That's someone else's joke (browndynamite1997
made that joke)
@@andreyromashchenko8967 Welcome to the internet xx
HAHHAHA!XD :D ...oooh Jeesus! ...:D :D aaah! - that one seriously cracked me up! XD :D
Thats from the TV Series "Arrested Development". Still very funny!
If Peterson had said: "I want time out from the debate to explore what is going on because I can feel you're coming with a lot of anger".
That would have been labeled "mansplaining", would it not?
Great point. Holy shit. Feminism has boxed themselves in lock and chains.
You know it
Yeah he would have been destroyed for that
Modern feminists have a word for everything, find a way to turn everything negative
Telling a woman she's being too emotional and she needs to calm down? Always a bad idea.
Jordan Peterson for Prime Minister.
Of The World.
no President of usa
Oh my god yes!!!!
But I dont want JP to suffer from the corrupted politics......
So ur saying woman can't be pm😂😂
Yes
I WISH THIS WOMAN INTERVIEWED DR PETERSON THAN CATHY. WE COULD’VE LEARN SOMETHING
I would love that combination, two people who are on the same mental level.
Even so, I learnt something. That there are people out there, who do not LISTEN, have their own agenda and do not give a rats about facts and reason.
Same result i feel
We learn, sometimes confirm what we were suspecting or something we had learnt before
Louis, as pretty and appealing as your suggestion that Peterson 'stop' the interview and 'be in the moment', Newman wasn't a client. It was an interview in which she set herself up as an adversary, to which Peterson responded with incredible grace and restraint. If he'd gone 'professional' on her, can you just IMAGINE the backlash and firestorm about doing a mindf*ck without permission? I'd think there'd be an ethics case to be made too.
Really great point. Exactly my thoughts however you articulated it clearly.
this psychologist has no clue about how things work in actual conversations..
@@timba1181 yeah, I'll DEFINITELY take your opinion seriously.
@@siegfriedbraun5447 gg
Very good point man. Very sharp.
I’m so glad Jordan Peterson didn’t do any of the things she was recommending. Imagine him try to tell Cathy during the interview “He understood her rage and where it’s coming from”🤡. It like admitting to a crime he didn’t commit. She woulda had field day with the agendas
The interview went viral because Newman had not done any research on Peterson, had no clue about what he teaches asked all the wrong questions and tried to force her own biased understanding back on him. She had decided before the interview what Peterson was all about from probably listening to his detractors over the C16 Bill but there is much more to him than that.
I have listened to hours of his lectures and being just an average person It was amazing to behold that an obviously intelligent interviewer could fail at her job so badly.
.
The female in the above interview is an air-head without a clue as well.
Arrogance and complacency. She had gotten so used to being able to flip over politicians she comes across with a few choice words that she assumed Jordan was just some reactionary right wing troll she could make look small. It backfired massively.
The Helen Lewis interview was different but equally awful. At one point JBP said (from memory) "once I know a few things about you I can predict your opinion on everything".
which was actually worse because she had the Newman interview as a reference but just went down the same rabbit holes...
Oh my goodness, stick a pencil in my eye. Peterson's approach was on point. I'm glad he didn't take a "pause" and do as she suggested.
🤢
But as a psychoanalyst, Peterson was compelled to understand why she acted out in such a way. He said in later interviews, that he spent the first 20 mins or so in “therapist mode”- trying to figure out if he was talking to her persona, ego or shadow! He finally realized it was none of those but rather the animus, and pretty much checked out when he realized she was actually animus possessed and would therefore continue to argue for the sake of arguing. She embarrassed herself and woman as a whole (which is why identity politics is dangerous and I try to disassociate myself from the “tribe”. I think for myself, not the collective and therefore LIKE to think that only I can embarrass me, thus protecting myself from being embarrassed by her. Tho my (human?) nature wouldn’t allow me to to escape completely unscathed- I still feel tiny twinges of shame on behalf of my gender. I appreciate Jordan Peterson for offering insight on the male experience of our shared space-time. I don’t resent him in the slightest! But then again, I’m intelligent, educated in sociology and psychology and my innermost self. I feel “enlightened” lol Regardless, none of which is Cathy Newman
By suggesting the pause, she was assuming both parties were willing to have a civilized discussion.
"We need to have intelligent conversation that is aligned with the evolutionary stream." That's a great line. I'm stealing that one.
I will NEVER get tired of watching Jordan's interview with Cathy "I know everything lalalala I can't hear you" Newman.
This is a psychologist? Collective rage?
Sloth Bear Yeah. She talked a load of high flutten bollocks. Or, just bollocks. I hate it when acedemic try to make themselves look intelligent by talking out of their asses.
Same sentiment I had. It seems that she conflated Jung's collective unconscious with the Hindu concept of Corruption the concept of transcendent collective rage as found in Norse and Mithraist mythology.
Exactly, and thank you. So many in the comments don't seem to care that this female psychologist is on Peterson's side. Instead, they just get dismissive and angry at her for a variety of reasons which all seem to boil down to, "she's not being harsh and condemnatory enough of Newman, feminism, and the female." If there's a away out of this cultural quagmire, it isn't going to be through partisan hostility, no matter how justified that hostility is.
Psyche means Soul. I hate it when idiots cant understand plain English and try to make themselves look intelligent by putting people down instead of being honest with themselves. She doesnt use language to appear to have hidden knowledge. She is speaking as plain as possible but you act superstitious and paranoid. This is why they persecuted every wisdom teacher in history. You would rather dismisses her to hold on to your own ignorance and intellectual superiority when the subject is the soul not the mind. You guys are acting just like Kathy Newman. Fascinating!
That's inaccurate. Some of us just don't think she's that bright, and mostly just new age feel good shit spewed out of her mouth. I don't like someone because they agree with me, I would rather someone intelligent and on the other side of the argument than barely cohesive but aligned with my current views. Simply agreeing with Jordan Peterson isn't a free pass from criticism... Hell I criticize Jordan Peterson... not everything Jordan Peterson says is right, or even simply sometimes he's not as good at articulating it as he could be. Think for yourself, not just blindly play team sports - but with Jordan Peterson being his own team.
She maxed out on her agreeableness stats.
She is still an awful feminist ... constantly talking about "the collective" of women.
Yes.
Yeah. She sounds a little loopy initially, BUT, I do think she is making some valid, if difficult to follow, points. I do think there is a phenomena within our society of women thinking they need to be men to be successful, they forget how to be women, and that internal conflict makes them lash out in every direction, often especially at other women.
No, it's a learned and fake way of speaking. Psychologists, priests, kindergartners, dog trainers ect speak this way. Not necessary malicious, but often is.
Middle 15min of the original video is absolutely crazy, nothing of value is said IIRC. It's like a mix between watching a surreal drowning scene in a movie with long hair and clothes wavily floating by in all directions at all distances with no up or down or focus being discernable and at the same time she is annoying the crap out of me with this intensity with no point or purpose. Acting like these women who feel entitled to literally get down on the ground in front of somone to force eye contact on someone who clearly isnt looking for a conversation or has dropped their eyes in the current conversation because they felt their brain melting under the laser-stare. This kind of feminine bullying, even AS Louise explains that it is wrong, she is at the same time displaying the signs of being a fem-bully herself. I can't stand her, but I try my very best to seperate that and dig out the arguments she is making as well as I can, otherwise I'd be doing the thing she and Newman is doing wrong..
But I think I know what you mean by agreeableness stat, she WILL probably convince most people she is agreeable...so maybe agreeable-privilege and maybe even self-identifying as agreeable, but I smell a socially highly skilled bully working from feminist and identity political assumptions...but to be fair to her, this profile used optimally can make for a hell of a therapist..
Had Peterson called for a time-out, and try to find out where the rage is coming from, Newman would probably accuse him of mansplaining.
"This is the underbelly of feminism. This is when feminism goes wrong." Great job Cathy Newman!
This woman's argument is flawed, she groups women into a group. A collective.
Agree. - Further: Ireland is a lost cause. She is lucky to as much sense as she has.
A bit, but I think there is some wisdom in what she says. She speaks in kind of a spiritual way almost
jackthebasenjicooks the term collective here, the shadow collective specifically, refers to the collective unconscious, a term coined by Carl Jung. It refers to archetypal structures of the unconscious mind which we share with one another. Her analyses is her own but the idea of the collective is valid.
It is a collective, women all know if they act like a victim they get whatever they want
Alex Trefall I find that idea disturbing. I am a woman, but consciously or unconsciously I believe I think with my own mind.
I'm sorry but I don't buy this collective rage. I don't feel any rage towards men at all. I may feel rage in a specific instance towards a specific individual who is treating me poorly but the idea that women have any reason at all to be 'enraged' to me is part of the lie.
Don't worry. She's not a psychologist. Her PhD is in design from a college I never heard of and she appears to have had a career change to Psychosexuality and Shaminism (according to her website). She's a total quack. Another reason why women should stop letting women get away with speaking on their behalf. You get nutbags like this trying to claim to be experts.
She went a bit far with that.
But I've tried to engage politely with women in feminist forums, and if I deviate one iota from their collective narrative, I am attacked by all of them.
Mostly they tell me that I'm a rapist a a sexual predator for disagreeing with any minor thing they bring up.
This is the thing that shows how blatantly wrong they are. They can't back up their narrative with facts and reason so they hurl slurs and insults to get you to back down. There is no such thing as a polite conversation with these women and this is coming from a woman. I've gotten into it with many of them and sadly have had to shame them into reasoned thought. The sad thing is most of them are ignorant lemmings that have no idea they are being manipulated by Marxist leftists that want to divide society in order to keep control of it.
From Petersen's perspective, then you are likely not animus-possessed by the SWJ conception of Patriarchy.
You know, I like to think I have a pretty good vocabulary but I actually had to look that one up. lol So no, not animus-possessed. Put it this way, if it was legal for a day to punch SJW's and feminists.....I would enthusiastically partake. :D
women have collectively chosen victimhood and vindictiveness, the game is up
Sadly they've been manipulated into feeling that way for years. The constant victim narrative from the media has had its effect. The same has happened with racial issues or other minorities willing to be visible through victimization.If there's a victim then there's an oppressor, then follows anger and rage and finally spiteful revenge.
yes, its the standard group-think playbook
Yep. It's over for them, fortunately.
Thank you Dr. Louise Mazanti, for your summary of that interview. I have to say when I watched the full interview, I felt she was on an attack of Dr. Peterson's character and his work, it was horrifying that she was allowed to behave in such a manner. I wish it had been addressed at the time. Cathy Newman was abusive, and aggressive to the max! She should be seriously reprimanded.
Saying, “When feminism goes wrong” is the same thing as saying, “When a dumpster fire goes wrong.”
Rofl!
This is so helpful. You sound so smart. Not at all ignorant, or pathetic. As Jordan Peterson would say “grow up”.
Feminism had good roots tbh. But unfortunately they've been corrupted. I love woman, I love humans. Feminism was originally about equality which I think everyone can agree with.
@@boobtimmy9470 Feminism has its roots in witchcraft. There’s no such thing as a benevolent grievance-based belief system. Feminism is and always was anti-male fascism. Claiming ‘love for all people’ is cute, but it’s naive. It’s your defense against the harsh reality that you are hated, and that you will at some point have to accept that you live in a world of deceitful monsters. Feminists hate you, and they hate you openly and with vitriol. They hate you so much that they’ll tell you they love you to bring you in as close as they can for the kill. Good luck out there.
@@hasgoodles7807 - Suit yourself, Has. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
This is silly. Peterson was not treating Newman as a patient, he was taking part in an interview with an established reporter on a national tv channel. To have stopped the interview and asked for a time out to analyse Newman’s issues would have led to him being criticised, correctly, as not respecting her professional role. Her questioning was an attempt to deliberately misrepresent his views, as seen by her constantly restating his replies as “So, you’re saying...” followed by an increasingly bizarre assertion. Newman started the interview with an agenda quite different from her supposed journalistic role on behalf of the viewers: of eliciting from Peterson a elaboration of his views and how he came to them, as represented by his new book which he was in the uk to promote. It’s doubtful that Newman had even read the book. Professional journalism this was not. The psychologist in this clip, referring to Peterson and Newman as everyman/everywoman is denying the agency of both. This whole clip is rather odd response to the c4 interview. Could it be some overthought attempt at damage limitation by c4 with help of a sympathetic former c4 producer?
In fairness he does say he trested her like she was a patient. He made that his approach. Thats not bad. Its what helped him achieve his desired outcome
if Peterson tried to level with her it would be seen as insincere or condescending
It should be her who calls him up to apologize for being such a manipulative bitch.
written off as "mansplaining".
A women taking an objective, logical, dispassionate and objective view about feminism and the patriarchal myth..How refreshing. How rare. I briefly listened to Radio 4 today and as per usual, it was a relentless diatribe of feminist propaganda...I took it for 5 minutes and switched...i will check back tomorrow, and I'm 99% sure that i will hear the same again...and again.
I felt Cathy Newman hadn’t researched Jordan & had been told about him in a certain way so the researchers & producers own some blame for the car crash interview
I wonder if she tried to sell him 'essential oils' after the interview....
he would buy that - except he already has the selection he wants.
Or some healing crystals
Hahahah
🤣🤣🤣 that is exactly the vibe that I got from this interview!
She would asks an awesome wife but man....lol
This woman is far too childlike. She very clearly does not understand the insanity of the hard left. I agree fully with some of you, if Peterson had done that "time out" (HA HA HA HA HA!) thing....Cathy Newman and her fellow cultists would have attacked him for it.
Neuro Mancer
She IS the hard left. She agrees with everything that Kathy faked outrage about. Her only criticism of Kathy is that she should have shoved feminazi bullshit in a way that didn't make her and her agenda look foolish.
Only children get time outs.
so newman is a victim of having to compete to get to the top of her field? and that’s becoming more masculine and feeding into the “collective rage” of femininity?
this sounds like a load of pish.
What's so masculine about twisting every word your opponent is saying? A truly masculine person would engage the central points head on.
I was thinking the same about this psychologists explanation being a load of old piffle
it wasn't just piffle. it was also balder dash!
ur illiterate listen to whats actually being said fuck
posh pish at that...lol.
Wow. That was the most beautiful interview I’ve heard in a while.
I’ve actively been waiting for some noble women to start saying this, so I can share it. Because I’ve realized it can’t be males like me who express it. it wouldn’t matter if no one would listen.I sincerely hope this begins some turning point of genuine healing for gender strife, after all the decades of cathartic outpouring of pent up rage.
This woman is so full of it. "feeling the energy" "live in their power", etc. She's a buzzword machine.
Had he tried to pause her they would have crucified him as trying to control the conversation. That wouldn't have been a solution - she wasn't there for therapy and it would have been condescending.
And the whole point is that everyone can find anger in themselves. Men and women. The difference is society celebrates that anger in women and tells men they have no right to be angry.
The reaction from this is going to be men realizing that society telling them not to be angry doesn't have the moral high ground to make that claim when its being controlled by regressive feminist supporters. The result will be a lot of uncontrolled anger, which is not a good thing.
You can be angry without a good reason. Just because you're angry doesn't mean you're right, and doesn't mean other people have to acknowledge you. That's a feminist premise that they use to claim legitimacy on the basis of hurt feelings.
Your mother needs to acknowledge your anger. Your therapist needs to acknowledge your anger. Society needs to tell you to stfu and grow up. Otherwise we get these overgrown children like Cathy Newman wholly possessed by their angry ideology and incapable of thinking or even making intelligent arguments.
To quote jordan peterson
"Grow up, you weasel!"
The psychologist isn't much better than Newman.
Interesting. So why is there such female rage today? This was not present when I was young. I get the feeling that women are disconnected with themselves and project this outwards.
It's as if decades of feminism isn't making women happier....
Correct. I think some women are feeling a deep internal struggle. They want to deny it but it is there. Women are trying to be men and find fulfillment in things that intrinsically won’t make them happy. And because women are more about intuiting rather than reasoning, they have this frustration that builds up in them that they can’t make sense of. I think a good example of this is when we see when these female sjws start screaming and bawling when they are provoking in the slightest way by truth. And I think their only solution to their internal strife is to blame men, period.
Truth. I'm not even 30 and this wasn't a thing in my teens, where angst is tops.
It's not female rage, it's _feminist_ rage at the perceived slights and oppression instantiated by the patriarchy. They're just riled up ideologues and it doesn't even have to make sense, because women don't have to.
Bingo, and the Left (gay alphabet,SJW, political correctness, BLM, Antifa, and the MSM) are all stacking it layer upon layer, making it worse daily. But I still want to hear Louise' explanation as a female psych.
A Man is responsible for everything he do.
How is newman is not responsible of her own rage?
In her little bubble, everything is on the outside, so everything is not her fault. It is a critical case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Because it's ALWAYS easier to blame someone else.
Fredderick Anselmo : on second thought I overlooked something. Dr. Jordan Peterson highlighted how she seemed a different person just before the interview...
I overlooked that in my initial analysis. If this is the case this is not narcissistic personality disorder, or at least not it on its own. She is likely a conduct disorder salad with overlapping narcissistic traits. At this time she is too complicated for me.
She is responsible, and the psychologist didn't say she wasn't.
What's she's saying is her anger comes from the collective, her background experiences.
Fredderick Anselmo - cuz the patriarchy
This psychologists assessment is “right on”. I couldn’t believe Cathy Newman’s interview. I don’t know Cathy Newman and how she’s considered in the UK. If she’s considered a top notch journalist...oh boy.
Newman was looking for a “gotcha” and fell into her own trap of misinformation
Yes, Newman was manipulating everything she was saying. Why she did this, is pure speculation. I agree with this woman that the collective rage among angry women is 'acting out'. But they are behaving like children and that behavior demeans women imo. Whatever the reason for the acting out, IF it is anger, it does need to be managed in a mature way. Anger is like kindling...the more you pile it on, the bigger the fire it produces, which can lead to a destructive inferno. I want no part of these women. I find their behavior reprehensible. I can stand up to any man w/o behaving like an insane raging shrew and without playing the victim.
The essence of the #METOO movement is blind rage and destruction over trivialities.
Do you have legit kung fu skills or you just talkin the talk like most women?
He shouldn't need to do a timeout, it's not his job to do her job.
He should have sent her to her room, and withdrawn her phone and internet privileges.
@@cathystrawman2961 so your saying he should have killed her?
So, what you are saying is every woman is an irrational angry victim with rage issues?
They just want to justify their attack to usher in more power grabs.
yes
hahaha the joke flies right over the heads of those above
"My whole body contracted and I felt so sad."
Me too.
After that it's vague and I really don't know what she's talking about. Collective rage? Count me out.
Count me out too
Collective rage of the new age feminist maybe? I can tap in to the collective rage of males who have this weight of "toxic masculinity" put on them by these new version of feminist activists... doesnt mean I see women as any less... women like newman dont reflect the positive ideologies of the feminine. She creates a further gap between men and woman by projecting the extremities of the negative of the masculine onto every male. I'd say she's got more of that toxic masculinity than what someone like jordan Peterson does.... I hope we can all feel equal one day
She's not insisting that women are basically a hive mind just waiting to propagate hate. Just acknowledging the anger one might have for things like being judged for being successful by having masculine traits. She isn't saying you act on this rage the way Newman did, if anything she's insisting people have intelligent conversations about it. Idk why you would want to count yourself out
Don't you know... She is just talking about the feminism... You are right.. It is vague and an ahe is right too... Feminism is inexplicable rage and is obviously collective...
It’s nice to get a woman’s perspective on this interview. She made some good points.
Brilliant and honest analysis. Thank you both for speaking truth. This is the way to solutions.
She didn't have rage, it's just how corrupt journalists work.
I don't think Cathy Newman believed anything she said, it's all about projecting a narrative, in order to to be seen as a moral source of truth.
She had those questions either written down, or spoken into her ear and she expected it to go the way it's worked for her in the past. However, she was outclassed by someone who was aware of the tactics and steered the conversation in the way he wanted. She wasn't prepared and so she ended up coming across as confused that he was going off script, as if she wasn't listening to his answers and so she had to twist his words in a way that was so obvious to everyone watching, even those in denial about it, hence the damage control.
The one thing that's clear, is Cathy Newman is a bitter person.
Cathy needs a Newboning.
Frank Brown Great analysis
But what morals to project and at what audience is being captured in that market...yikes
The moral ideology of social justice.
It's a an ideology manufactured to manipulate people in to doing what certain people want, people who don't believe what they preach, but demand you do. It's nothing more than a tool used to gain societal control, once they have control, the ideology would get discarded and their true intentions become apparent.
Thankfully, most people don't hold extremist views and as such the audience being captured is small and is continuing to shrink as people can no longer ignore the reality at what this ideology entails.
Yes, a ridiculous monologue about Cathy holding the 'rage of all women' What numbskulled garbage is this - how does the guy interviewingg keep a straight face? If you're concerned about university departments losing their way you should be equally concerned about the drivel this woman is spouting
Sorry but what? She keeps saying rage is "in the female collective". I can feel rage too, no problem. I'm a male. It's a Human trait, not a specifically female one. She seems to be talking a load of wooish nonsense.
Rob Inson You come off as being insecure in your masculinity.
That's a pretty fair assessment of her narrative.
Cathy Strawman How is it different from Jordan Petersons in your opinion? She's not saying anything substantially different.
I'm a woman and I'm not in a state of rage over being a woman. I felt that way when I was 13. I don't feel that way at the age of 30 because I've experienced the world around me and realized that being a woman is pretty good.
Feminism exploits biological instincts in a very parasitic and covert way. Masculinity is characterized as tyranny, which isn't very manly or sustainable in reality. This is paralleled by the very common attraction women have toward "bad boys". Whether an outspoken femi-nazi or a hollywood bimbo, the "victim" of feminism is compelled to various forms of grotesque role-reversal.
Almost immediately she tries to justify Cathy’s behavior without necessarily condoning it. What a shame
Much of this ‘rage’ is likely caused by competing with each other on social media. In many cases, I’d bet that using social media equates to self harm.
Best response yet and only a minute and a half into it.
Also, no. That potential is not in every woman. Because not every woman feels the "collective rage" she speaks about ... we haven't bought into that narrative pushed by feminism.
many feminists do have collective rage. I seen it and it s fairly apparent. Look at all the social justice warriors as well they feel they are oppressed when they are not and decide to take their rage on others for no justifiable reasons at all. That is so wrong on their part, they should be treated as patients that they are because they are mentally ill.
Many feminists, yes. Every woman, no. She wasn't specifying only "feminists" in her remark, but all women, which is what my comment is referencing. She's incorrect about that.
CynDaVaz - well that's like saying healthy people aren't insane, so yes quite right.
And it's important that the healthy and sane participate in the dialog and not be silent, whether it's feminists or leftists or Muslims or Trans-identified people.
CynDavas, thank you for mentioning this coment, and to tell you the truth mist women do not agree at all with those radical views. And no there is no potential there to become this way, we all do not see the world in that crazy light. That is a very good point.
Well said. I'm not even sure what that collective rage is. Is it real or implanted? It often seems rather plastic.
I have to say, I am a woman and absolutely don't have anything "boiling right underneath the surface" and I can't "tap into any collective rage" that is just waiting to come out but was handled poorly by Cathy Newman.
At least not when it comes to the subject of gender, equality, or oppression of my feminine rights.
Her answers are vague and in my opinion do not contribute to an intellectual conversation as she calls it.
Thanks for doing the interview though!
You might not... but a lot of females do. Personal experience of course plays the biggest role, but generally, I assume it is because essentially we are all out of touch with ourselves in a world gone haywire... and in this specific regard, the war of the genders, annoying feminists, Harvey Weinstein and all the rest, with everything that is happening around us on top of that, people no longer know where to place themselves... women dont know how to be women, men dont know how to be men. -> Insecurity, no strong sense of belonging or identity, confusion -> anger.
Me too. I am a woman and I don't have any boiling anger underneath against "men". Come on. Who, exactly, are "men"? Abraham Lincoln was a man. Albert Schweitzer was a man. Adolf Hitler was a man. Florence Nightingale was a woman. Mata Hari was a woman. Every human being is an individual, whether woman or man, and I personally am really sick of feminism.
Sadly I see a lot of women that do have a lot of rage, and yet men do not seem to be the cause of it. But they are always the target. I don't know why so many women have this issue. Somehow our society has trained women from birth that any problem they have in life must be caused by a man, there is no other explanation.
This is probably why, even when women cause their own problems (such as when the woman cheats), she typically blames the man for even what she has done. It's out of control.
Suuuuuuuure
You actually included "in my opinion" which is exactly the joke
I never heard of Louise Mazanti until now, but I'm very impressed. I can tell that she is a very empathetic person who is deeply concerned about the relationships between men and women. She is fighting the good fight. I clung to her every word.
Just because I was angry didn't mean I was right - Jackie Leven
Can we please stop this victim mentality, this made me (a woman) cringe so hard, I don't even want to be associated with the 'collective' she's talking about.
As a matter of fact, I don't even want to be associated with women who think like this woman.
In your opinion, what kind of deep truth may she be talking about?
Well said. Feminism is about empowering women - not finding absurd excuses for their appalling behaviour. Honestly that sounded like the old excuse for men sexually harassing women because they were dressed provocatively - just crap.
Raafke I've been trying to get through Carl Jung book Aion which talks about the Animus. The male counterpart is called the Anima. When you aren't conscious of it, you can fall prey to it's influences, basically possessed by it. I think that's what she's referring to when she says "collective." As in so many people have experienced it for so long that it's become a psychological archetype. That's the reason for the universal term. Just my basic understanding of the phenomena so far.
Yeh, she is a pretty woeful example
Albert, it isn't deep truth. It isn't some mysterious deep truth. It's just bullshit. She's a bullshit artist and you're being fed shovels of it.
I love how she keeps her voice soft to explain female rage and excuse it.
I don’t know what female or male rage has to do with any of this. It was just plain stupid. The former producer being interviewed here, who happens to be a therapist herself, didn’t excuse it at all, she acknowledged it completely. She said it was abusive and manipulative of her, not him. She said she was embarrassed on behalf of women. What on earth were you just watching? He asked follow up questions, did you not hear this part? She’s on your side, dude.
@@hasgoodles7807Jordan Peterson discusses female rage. While men are more likely to get physical women are more likely to use their words for example in gossip, character assassination and insults
Interesting choice of 'psychologist'. A former professor of art and design turned sex therapist. This might account for the near incoherent psychobabble. She might have said something worth listening to, but I barely understood it (and I'm a psychologist).
absolute gibberish
she loves to throw "shadow" around because it makes her look educated and talked talked talked but didnt say anything of value
Yes I agree.
Also, Peterson is at his worst when he goes full Jungian.
Marc Smith The fuck even is a sex therapist?
I can sleep listening to her soothing voice. I can definitely go to my happy place.
She is a real women unlike that Kathy person.
She was caught in a bit of false victory when she heard Peterson say you making me rather uncomfortable, then she responds I'm glad that I got you to that point.
*Paraphrasing*
So what you're saying is this is an ASMR analysis of the interview????
The psychologist is so hot oh my god she’s so elegantly attractive and her voice is so relaxing.
her voice is so calming
I can't help but "feel" this phychologist is still blaming men for every ill women suffer. When women do well it is because they are powerful women. When they behave badly it is mens fault. Wouldn't it be healther to "clean your room" as JBP would say.
Thank the lord, someone said it!
Indeed, she showed how she feels when she said womanhood. What the hell does that mean? She has separated men and women as if there is a war between them. She would stab her husband in the back in favor of a female stranger. Such a weird frame of mind. When a man says manhood he's talking about his cock.
I got that sense too.
Personal responsibility is a useful philosophy. But reality is more complicated than that. It's difficult to understand much about anythign collective- be it family, society, ethnicity- in purely individualist terms. I encourage personal responsibility, but one has to be able to see the shortcomings of any system of thought one adopts... THis is exactly the failing of collectivists, they lose sight of the individual. Individualists make the same mistake, they lose sight of the collectives.
#METOO
Excellent analysis. Matches a lot of what Peterson himself said in a post-mortem on Truthbombs.
Therapist: "The shadow rage was acting through you."
Cathy Newman: "SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HATE WOMEN AND BLACK PEOPLE, TOO?!"
i would not change anything of what Peterson did during that interview
Agreed, this woman is an idiot - she says he should have stepped back and analyzed how she was behaving. In fact he took control in the best possible way - with respect. He did it by defending his position and pointed out her hostility by mentioning her 'disagreeableness' which was both a compliment and a criticism. His compliment destabilized her but also forced her to relate personally to the argument
She has a PhD which you probably don't have. You don't understand this was an interview not a debate. She was suppose to interview things in the book not to start a debate and putting words in his mouth to slender his book and reputation. She as a reporter is suppose to report the facts and ask questions of what is in the book and what he means, she did little in that regard and was just trying to create a false narrative of what the book was about instead of finding out the truth. This is what I feel Peterson should have done and point out of her obvious bias towards these subjects.
Jun Kim, not really. He would come across as arrogant and aggressive if he did that. Also, she is not there to report facts, I'm not sure if you know how interviews work but the interviewer asks questions, challenge and dig into the answers to try and elicit more detail. People are mistaken in thinking its a competition. Her questions were fairly shallow and combative but they were enough to bring out some talking points - which is the point. The interview style is completely normal even if the questions weren't very sharp.
The definition of a boring interview is when the interviewer affirms and plays to the points the interviewee is making.
hopp I think it would've been nice for him to try to cut to the core of Newman, and maybe REALLY change her mind. But what he ended up doing was perfectly fine as well. She acted like a child
Well said. Jordan's job is not to rehabilitate these women ... it's to expose them for who they really are.
WHo the hell is Louise Mazanti? Seriously B grade psychology vocabulary and explanations, wrapped in feel good New Age nothingness. Your interview with her should have ended after 60 seconds because she only rehashed with a paucity of professional terminology the first 60 seconds.
getting the opinion of someone as superficial and unedified as Mazanti regarding anything to do with Jordan Peterson is poor form. If women want to be treated as equals, she can start by doing some serious study and work, and less time doing coffee and hair. And seriously David Fuller, sporting an on trend beard doesn't make you a better journalist. In my books, it makes you someone without a strong enough internal locus of control to resist meaningless body meme-ing.
I thought she was insightful and pretty much matched what Peterson said post interview. What is your problem with her?
I stated what my problem was above. To unpack and lay it out neatly on the table for you, her repetitive use of a limited range of hacked populist and emotionally overladen phrases, strongly indicated a paucity of academic and clinical erudition in the field.
So tell me the novel insight she imparted to you.
The reason JP is so respected is because of his superior comprehension and communication of a broad range of psychology studies. This woman is pretty much the antithesis.
helicart To put it simply she is highlighting Newman's projection of the Jungian shadow onto Peterson. Man what do you want from her?
Damn hard to please these days.
@John McCue
1. It wasn't 'her' unconscious shadow, because she is not repressed, but rather, a very high achiever, and was pleasant enough to JP before the interview.
2. She can turn on and off these attacks at will, she does not have a consistent history of uncontrolled outbursts... therefore it is also unlikely to be the collective unconscious aspect of the shadow.
3. It was a totally conscious methodically planned strategy to unnerve and disorient JP in order to discredit his professional and intellectual status. But JP kept his cool and provided rational responses, so it became a battle of stamina, and Newman burnt out first.
Are you telling me Newman is so uneducated that she cannot comprehend the arguments and studies that show there is no gender pay gap? Of course she knows....but it doesn't fit the narrative she is paid to peddle. The reason she had to eventually pause to think of a response is because she knew her ruse is non sensical. She was playing a role that is not part of her or her shadow. She did it because it is part of how she expresses power in the world. She sided with 3rd wave feminism and neo Marxism not because she believes in these things, but because it gave her a leg up to power and status.
It is power, prestige, and status that is important above all else to Newman. No one else of her intelligence would play that role because they know it is transparent low brow rubbish.
A Ph.D in psychotherapy should have been able to elaborate why Newman did a collective shadow projection, rather than played a role as a professional antagoniser on behalf of progressive elites. If Newman was conscious of the ruse, it was not a projection. As I originally alluded, Mazanti is not a Ph.D psychotherapist's asshole.
Am I right in thinking personal responsibility is excused and the collective consciousness of all women is blamed for Newman's short comings un the interview not her agressive style of interview with huge helping of confirmation bias.
bloodmuffin123 yes, this shrink is mitigating newman’s personal responsibility because of some kind of collective “rage” that has yet to be justified. apparently.
Mistah Susan, I surmise the collective rage she speaks of is the victim narative propogated by modern third wave feminism that women are oppressed in the west and suffer under the yoke of patriarchal oppression, this therefore can excuse any manner of bad behaviours as the end justify the means comrade.
She wasn't saying that Newman has no personal responsibility, but relinquished it to feminism.
Only men have personal responsibility
This woman is very much tapped into the situation we are all finding ourselves in. It's this... but it goes so much deeper. Please keep it up, and keep waking up faster!
Man... Dr. Mazanti's first few sentences gave me goosebumps and brought tears to my eyes.
Yes a woman's rage is very powerful but we aren't meant to destroy man by using it
We aren't meant to mutilate our baby boys either, or deprive them of their fathers, or raise them as eunuchs, or make them feel guilty for having a penis, or denying men parenthood, or extorting them with help from the government. There are a lot of things women shouldn't be doing to men.
That rage should be aimed at enemies of the family's fortune, be it poor weather or economy etc. The supportive nature that 'the collective' is aiming outward towards other women would be better aimed at the individual men they depend on for continued survival. Men are meant to be strong, but part of that is not dealing with a spiteful opposing gender. Feminism has made men the enemy and in the process become what they feared. Do men need to fix women, is that what this therapist asked?
conradblackii I'm well aware of that. I'm no feminist.
I've sent away/ stopped many of natures elements in my time. I've brought good fortune to my family etc & on and on. I exactly live that way.
Can we expect ordinary folk /men & women to know this is how it works? When their power has been hidden from them since birth, perverted, diverted, inverted, however you want to put it into words. As we well know now the social programs and constructs run deep. No-one can escape the energy of truth thats coming forth now, but they sure can fight it, I don't want to call out all women for the fighting but those who go along with the feminism mantra are dumb programmed bitches. I can't stand them. They've made my life as a woman who wanted to create home, family, be a mother, have no career etc, I've been looked down upon by these types before.... I use my rage against them. They cannot stand being around my energy. I live a well balanced life, unlike them, I don't feel the need to fight everyone who doesn't agree with me either, they very much do attack other women that challenge them. They can stay well away from me and mine. That suits me. I laugh at these mad bitches. They will inevitably become extinct with their intentions
Good comment. Thanks
+going home, yes you speak to the heart of the situation. That most people need successful models to follow as they grow up, relatively few can go against the grain for so long and end up in good spirits. Young women are almost all taught that their life is a white collar yuppy man's life, and it is theirs to claim. The fact that few men lead this idealized or Hollywoodized version of reality doesn't sway the feminists. As Newman said in the interview, "who wouldn't want to be a CEO, it's interesting and well paid". Peterson tries to clue her in that most people wouldn't want that life, or have the ability to fight for it.
The Newman interview showed that there does exist a solid resistance to the status quo, and that the support and intellectual underpinnings for feminism (or chauvinism for that matter) are very thinly supported. Males and females are each one half of the battery of life, the yin / yang balance and cycle. Marxism hates this inequality and prefers we all become genderless robots instead.
Smart woman, interesting perspective. And in my humble opinion a living example of feminism gone right!
The therapist's accent quickly struck me as sounding Danish (I'm Danish), and she is, so it was a very pleasant surprise for me to hear a Danish woman say all these good things, since I find that most Danish women are self-righteous Cathy Newman clones, although there are some bright spots here and there. My British female friend, who has been living in Denmark for around three years, actually also called Danish women "very hard".
I disagree completely. She's not saying that women are justified in unleashing their rage. She's saying that we need to have proper conversations about these things, which is what Cathy Newman didn't manage because she was so brainwashed by feminism gone wrong, so she projected all her rage towards men onto Jordan Peterson.
To me, the therapist sounded very honest, and she completely took Jordan Peterson's side. As she started out by saying, she felt embarrassed for all women. I honestly don't see how all of you get to the conclusion that she was legitimizing Cathy Newman's behaviour. I heard her say the exact opposite - that it was embarrassing and an example of feminism gone wrong.
I’m with you. As far as I could see, she defended Dr. Peterson and called for women like Newman to actually listen to what is being said rather than twist every man’s words to fit a feminist expectation. She accurately described Newman’s approach as the darker side of the feminine nature that should be understood but kept in check, paralleling Peterson’s call to understand the monster inside you.
I’m completely surprised at the amount of negative conments from men who appear to have not listened carefully to this woman. I think it’s ironic that they seem to be “pulling a Newman” themselves. It’s true, intelligent, feminine women do not always speak in the same precisely logical way as Dr. Peterson. She explains this near the end. Feminine nature and values are different from masculine nature and values and a woman shouldn’t be pilloried because she doesn’t act like a man. Anyway, that’s how I saw it.
She was spewing horse manure in platitudes. Till, near the end, her polite, accomadating speech was pushed aside by expressions of her own rage momentarily. She was faking agreeability the entire time. I wouldn't trust this lady as far as I could throw her.
Her name doesn't sound Danish does it? She's done some amusingly whacky sex advice including videos (they're on YT) where she and her partner talk about their sex life..
So probably a lunatic :)
this "collective RAGE" that supposedly is in "all" women.... NO DEAR LADY.... it is ONLY in Feminists....
Those of us who have never stepped OFF of our pedestal and lowered ourselves to become "EQUAL" have no such thing as "RAGE" .. As women, we always have been and are STILL the "Ruling Power behind the Throne" ... because we are the Strength behind our men.... and in return we are Adored, Loved and Respected by the men we Honor and Respect. A Real Woman will not have pent up Anger or Rage; because her life will be full and without regret.
Well said and totally agree, this pent up rage they have!! All the best
The problem with stopping to ask what is making her angry, is that's the very moment the abuse of emotional blackmail succeeds at getting it's claws into it's victim. Peterson did exactly what he should have done; stood his ground, stayed assertive, kept his responses rational, made his case, all while remaining respectful. This is why the woman in this video see's Cathy as the abusers instead of the victim.
"Rage"..??? Calm down, women. Just do your job..and please shut up about it.
Olav Bergman
lol
Jeremy Sears
It would not really be a lol-matter.
Olav Bergman
Its not so much "about it" as much as its a relief to see/hear the obvious.... without the usual shaming & vitriol I get for saying such a thing in my public and private life.
Women want to be protected and given a pass on their rage and abuse because their damn vagina and victim cult status.
Sometimes , that's what a slap was for in the past.
The interviewee is over analysing this. As far as I can tell, Chanel 4 has always conducted intentionally provocative interviews, whether the journalist agrees with the subject or not, it seems the point of these Chanel 4 interviews is to be sensationalist and provocative. It's not clear necessarily that Cathy Newman even believes the words coming out of her own mouth.
Exactly! Who knows what is Newman's stance on things. She's a journalist, and provocation, including use of straw man arguments, is her job.
Newman seems quite a clever woman; I also don't think she defends the arguments she used in the interview as her own. She just basically took a role of a 'feminist persona', based on what feminist arguments are currently popular on the internet and social media. Her ebthusiastic debating made people cinvinced that she also thinks the same way as a side she ostensibly represented.
Bill Addison Newman's facial expressions and body language show that she believes her own lies. You can see her trying to get on the offensive while Peterson clearly remains on a calm controlling plain. You can see her rage as he just nonchalantly bats her attacks away. It was like watching a 3 year old fighting an mma pro.
I agree, her body language gave her away. If she had been just pretending to think that way, she would've been calm and collected but her hostility was not a pretence.
I think that is very likely. But it would show a stunning level of sociopathy if it were true. Is she willing to dehumanize broad swathes of humanity for her own ego and employment? That indicates a far more dysfunctional personality than simply believing feminist ideology.
You got one thing right. Newman was projecting her animus in this instance. Channeling her rage at a man who obviously didn't deserve it, but what she didn't expect is that Peterson is NOT a pushover. Not only that but he is far more intelligent than her.
Why would he back down in this case, give her a handout when he is superior? He actually did her a favor in this instance. He DID beat her intellectually, but he humbled her as well.She WILlL either have to reconsider her ways of conducting interviews, and be less hostile, or she will continue being hostile and find a weaker male that she can dominate in such an agressive interview manner.
My money is on the latter, but now, many men will learn the Petterson technique and her success rate will rop if she persists in conducting interviews like this.
A great retrospective on the Joradan Peterson / Cathy Newman interview! Well done - Louise Mazanti!
There should be a pay gap - between other journalists and Cathy Newman.
this is going to get a whole bunch worse, i'm not sure it will get much better.
Rarely has I ever heard such a complete pile of total pure nonsense in my life! Correction this is the biggest pile!
This woman’s voice very soothing. I’m curious, what did she mean by men “not showing up”. Did she mean to say men who are not mentally engaged?
For 50 years, Western men have acted like cucked ostriches...to cowardly to attack feminism. Females responded by throwing temper tantrums...like spoiled children who are never disciplined.
i did not get the meaning of not showing up either.
Women need men to be both physically & mentally present when times are hard and just listen, nod in the affirmative & give us a hug instead of tell women their concerns are wrong.
It's Okay to Eat Mayo what you are describing is called “being coddled”
I think she literately means man not showing up to woo Catty Newman because she is a 'strong independent woman' wits angers woman like catty.
Dr Mazanti is so so right. Peterson addressed this to a degree discussing the competitive nature of her career and her success at it. Men are often different but not necessarily better. Peterson did a great job.
So based on what she's saying, the 'collective rage' present in almost all women, feminist or not, is just a given phenomenon that can be tapped into spontaneously due to an accumulation of injustices in the past? COME ON... women in third world countries have been truly truly suffering with lack of rights and rape and I empathize with them.. but women in modern developed countries have been beyond pampered and given equal opportunities in every way. I as a millennial male, have been brought up to treat every person without judgement, prejudice or any preconceived notion... I do not subscribe to the whole feminist movement because I myself do not see an imbalance in equality in my daily life experiences between men and women inside and outside the workforce...
In fact, I would say that there has been so much credit and care given to women in this day and age, that being a man is synonymous to being an oppressor on the eyes of most feminists.
Please have an interview with Cathy Newman.
world doesnt revolve around you and what you see kiddo.
"Collective rage"?? That was a waste of time! I may as well have read my horoscope..
cleanse your chakras you're getting closedminded
IKR, this is some hippie dippy bullshit.
atticus319 the term collective here, the shadow/rage collective specifically, refers to the collective unconscious, a term coined by Carl Jung. It refers to archetypal structures of the unconscious mind which we share with one another. Nothing to do with new age BS even if her own interpretation of it sounds a bit “new agey”
Alex, pay attention and think before trying to enlighten. Listen to what she says, about how she feels on behalf of womanhood, and men causing women's feelings, and you will see that this is not the definition of collective rage she's referring to. She speaks as if people can share an emotion, and I disagree with this. I wasted my time listening to the first 4.5 minutes again, and at no point did she use the term collective unconscious.
You're response was so out of integrity, it made me vomit. I'm guessing you're a humanities educated person.
It might "sound like" something, but if you pay attention, MGTOW and Red Pillers are actually bringing data and well thought perspectives, whereas feminists and SJWs make up stuff based on how they feel. The fem/SJW can largely be explained through the cliche "the grass is always greener.."
This is just as ridiculous as Newman...
Right
Charles Lizana how she is saying the female interviewer was throwing her issues and making them be his fault which clearly could be shown
Charles Lizana oh you're one we might call a modern beta male progressive?
I'm confused... Am I a "modern beta male progressive" because I think Cathy Newman is a sociopathic SJW media tool? Or, is it because I think this hippie dippy nonsense explanation of her pointed attack of Jordan Peterson "being the manifestation of the worldwide collective of female anger" is just as ridiculous?
Charles Lizana oh sorry. I misread your comment. My mistake, that I will leave for all to see. 😂
Have a great day. ☕
When she said "I can tap into that rage" I could see the crazy in her eyes. The past men she's lost her mind at. She's the type of woman you turn and run from and never look back.
Though this happened a long time ago, still thank you so much for being so true and honest.
Newman was not "pushed into" being aggressive by a masculine world. Aggression is not just the domain of men David Fuller. All behaviours cross over genders!
After I hit 50, I decided to give up on dating. To me, it had always been a game. A game that was stacked against the deck of any man that wasn't a superior specimen in the eyes of a woman. Whether it be that he was really strong, really handsome or really well off financially. Even when I would grow wiser and learn to detect the minefield before stepping on the mines, the avoidance of the mines became a minefield of it's own. For example when being asked, "do you think I wear too much makeup." From experience you learn that saying yes means you are attacking the way they put on makeup and saying no means you are attacking the way they look with less makeup. You think you can avoid the no-win question by going around it with something like "I don't really notice it" gets turned into you not caring about something important to them. Try to make a joke like "the make up is fine .. as long as I'm not paying for it" and it becomes that you are never serious. As a person that likes most kids but never had kids of his own, I wash away any regrets by thinking about how many times I don't have to have a conversation with the mother about the job she is doing as a mom or that I am doing as a dad. To steal a little bit from a Bill Burr joke and make it my own, masturbation is the champaign of remaining sane.
Great interview. Really interesting to hear an intelligent female psychologist speaking on this subject.
I miss my husband and feel like shit when I think of my own ''rage'' that I put onto him. The best man I ever knew.
did you ever get a chance to tell him.. if you did. then a big well done.. to you..
I love the way her voice slids inside my head
The world has reached a point where it's giving birth to a new breed of Humans that are wolves disguised as sheep (socially speaking). They appear to have good intentions, but their true nature is that of violence and anger and it often shows in situations like these. The things this Ms Mazanti is saying in this interview are at this point a long forgotten dream; we would all love to be able to discuss constructively, but there are those who are being raised in a way that it's impossible for their minds to be open for a constructive conversation. All opinions are being tagged with labels rather than deconstructed as genuine efforts to better mankind. Your opinion will be labelled and thus your intentions will be dismissed even if they are as pure are raw gold.
did you know if a man farts near a woman it's rape!?
If a man speaks in the woods and a woman is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?
So you are saying that all women are driven by a destructive rage?
old Geezer yes
I think everyone has rage I'm them. I know I do, but I don't take it out on others.
I sure hope not.
old Geezer Shut up.
Women whose feminine energy is not correctly grounded are bitches.
This is very consistent. However so caused.
If women are grounded in their feminine energy, they are amazing creatures.
I think people are confusing her weird tonal expression and intonation that comes across a bit inauthentically with what she is actually saying. The notion of a collective unconscious shadow projection expressed by people within the neo feminist movement is spot on. Its unconscious, enmeshed, unprocessed resentment, victimhood, and immaturity. I don't many people criticising the unconscious collective concept actually understand what it means...The general metaphor of the ultimately destructive and devouring shadow feminine is pretty standard archetypally, also.
Yea people are misunderstanding her when she uses the word collective. She’s basically stating the same thing Peterson says. Which is good.
Dr Louise Mazanti is mostly spot-on in this interview. Sure, you can pick out a phrase or sentence that was not well-thought out or has little evidence to back it up, but she has the right perspective. I think most women are wonderful, and I think that women are done a disservice when they are measured by a male standard (how aggressive they are, how disagreeable, etc.). Women bring unique talents, in particular the ability to bring together information from diverse domains or groups to bear on a problem. Men often select one criteria (typically the most easily-measured one) and create a strategy to maximize along that criteria. This gives them a "win", but does so at the expense of all the other criteria. Women are better at finding solutions that satisfy 80% or so of each group's needs. We need more of that in business and relationships.
What she says at the end "We have to start with ourselves" - adult women (and men) need to understand personal Agency and Responsibility.
Much trouble starts when either attempt to "outsource" their personal Agency.
What this means to me is: an adult and sane person with a healthy upbringing has the tools and responsibility to deal with 90% of what life throws at them, and to learn from their mistakes. For everything else, that is what their support structure or group is there for.
Someone needs a healthy dose of individuation.
Cathy dared to challenge a bona-fide dragon slayer.
She makes some good points. Both genders have that core power in them.
"Feminism" is not a label that should be used in any way with regard to the Newman interview. It's much deeper than that. To use "feminism" is to not look at the source, which is the thought system of the ego. Don't get distracted by lables.
Is it me or is she falling more on the patient end of the scale than the therapist side?